One nano-SIM to rule them all: Apple submission approved as standard

The ETSI decision will open the door for thinner and more capable phones.

Apple wants to put old and busted SIMs in a landfill and replace them with a newer, smaller nano-SIM.

The nano-SIM design proposed by Apple has been approved by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), opening the door for the creation of even smaller SIM cards and the continued shrinking of smartphone hardware. ETSI announced its decision on Friday morning, choosing Apple's submission over proposals from Motorola, RIM, and Nokia.

The new SIM card design is the fourth form factor (4FF) and is 40 percent smaller than the micro-SIM that is currently popular in today's cell phones. The exact dimensions of the nano-SIM will be 12.3mm wide, 8.8mm high, and 0.67mm thick (0.48" x 0.35" x 0.03"), according to ETSI. And, when it hits the market, it will be packaged so that it's backwards compatible with slots designed to fit the current micro-SIM. This will enable the new SIM to work with older handsets while phone manufacturers work to develop newer hardware that can take advantage of the smaller dimensions.

"Today's SIM card designs take up a significant amount of space inside a mobile device," ETSI said in a statement. "This space is more and more valuable in today's handsets which deliver an ever-increasing number of features."

Although Apple's design had the support of a number of European cell carriers, the competition among the companies was quite fierce. RIM, Nokia, and Motorola all argued that their own designs would cause less damage to a handset when inserted, therefore making them superior to Apple's design. Nokia even went so far as to say that it would refuse to license Apple's standards-essential patents if it won.

"We believe that Apple is mis-using the standardization process, seeking to impose its own proprietary solution on the industry and using ETSI merely to rubber stamp its proposal, rather than following established principles and practices," Nokia said in a statement in March of this year. "We have informed ETSI that, if Apple's proposal is selected, then Nokia will not license its relevant patents to that standard."

This was despite the fact that Apple wrote in a letter to ETSI that it would offer royalty-free licenses for its nano-SIM design.

Still, Apple did end up making some changes to its design last month in response to the controversy, as did RIM and Motorola. In fact, both sides ended up inching toward each other so much with their modifications that Apple's newly approved design is only different from RIM/Motorola's in minuscule ways. Both 4FF SIMs are the same dimensions on the outside, but RIM/Motorola's differs because it has a notch that would allow handsets to use "push-push" designs instead of sliding trays for the SIM cards. ("Push-push" allows you to push the SIM into the slot, and then push it again in order to get it to pop out.) (Update: this paragraph originally stated that Apple's design was the one with the notch, which was backwards. It has since been corrected.)

ETSI didn't specifically name Apple as the winner in its announcement on Friday, but as noted by Macworld, the winner of the ETSI decision was identified by a member of the committee, Giesecke & Devrient. ETSI has also declined to comment on how the decision was made, which is unfortunate since many argue that the notched design would have been superior to the tray design. "We now have an ETSI standardized format for 4FF," the group said in a statement to The Verge. "It's no longer a question of one company or another, the industry has collectively made a decision."

As for what the decision means for consumers, some will care about the shrinking SIM specifications and most others will remain completely oblivious. What most consumers will see in the coming years will be smaller and thinner handsets—as we know from various teardowns of popular smartphones, manufacturers tend to pack them as tightly as they can with components in order to keep physical size to a minimum. A 40-percent-smaller SIM means phone manufacturers can continue to reduce handset bulk, or even add newer components that might need a little more space.

As for Nokia, it seems the company has come around from its original position on Apple's design—sort of. "Nokia continues to believe that the selected nano-SIM proposal is technically inferior and not suitable for a number of applications, but the ETSI Smart Card Platform Technical Committee has now made its decision," the company said in a statement. "As Nokia believes that ETSI has taken steps to address Nokia's original concerns over the standardization process, we have advised ETSI that we are prepared to license any Nokia patents which are essential to implement the standard, on [fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory] terms."

Promoted Comments

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the behind.

108 Reader Comments

Agreed. I am one of two people at work that provisions cell phones for users. We pretty much let our users select which cell phone they want. I have yet to see any manufacturer (other than Apple) using the micro-SIM.

Nokia uses them for high-end devices. The high-end devices are also the largest (having touch-screen and everything), which makes it even more absurd.

Anyway. The reason why Apple isn't allowed to drop SIM-card completely (only make them user-unfriendly like their GUIs) is not due to carrier-pushback, but because SIM-card like much of the GSM system is demanded by the EU. You need to allow it to make EU devices.

As someone born and raised in the USA, I'd like to ask Ars, and basically every publication, to stop condescending to Americans with conversions of units, e.g. from mm to inches. I think I can speak for most Americans, and certainly most Ars readers, in saying that we know what a freaking millimeter is, and all other SI units. They are taught in all American schools. Just publish whatever units the source material gives, and leave it at that. No conversion necessary.

PS: How many non-Americans out there think that Americans don't understand SI units? I'll bet that conversions shown in American publications add to a feeling of "stupid Americans".

Are you upset by currency conversion as well or is it limited to conversions of length?

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the behind.

Carrier trays are to cell phones as pens are to tablets. I can only see two possible advantages to carrier trays and that is that they might keep the phone more sealed against dirt and that the sim card may be harder to accidentially unseat. But it would have been better if the standard they selected supported both options.

The first photo is of the PCB that contains the meat of the phone. The A5 SoC is on the right (outlined in red), and all the RF hardware is on the left (lots of skittles colours).

In the middle is the SIM socket, which has a slightly larger footprint than the A5. It's a dumb socket that provides a handful of contacts, but it occupies more surface area than the package for the processor & RAM.

I suspect what Apple is working towards is a way to shrink the main PCB from running the length of the phone alongside the battery (see step 19) to one that spans the width of the phone instead. That would leave the space for the battery a little shorter but significantly wider, which would probably mean a significantly larger volume.

There are no miracle cures for battery life woes around the corner. LiIon battery tech delivers only incremental improvements in energy density, and the computing hardware sometimes takes a step backwards as users demand more power/features. The only realistic way to improve battery life is to increase the volume of the battery, and that means making the phone physically larger instead (which may or may not be palatable to Apple - iPhone 5 16:9 rumours aside) and/or making everything else in the phone smaller (MEMS microphones and linear vibrators have already helped a little in this regard).

With the old SIM form factor the latter's a tough proposition. Whether the socket for the 4FF SIM is drastically reduced in size, I have no idea - everything I've read so far has focussed on the SIM card itself instead of the mating hardware. However, it is a reduction in the footprint of the largest single component on the PCB, which can't do anything but aid miniaturisation.

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the behind.

The size savings are more than just the SIM itself. You have to factor in the assembly that holds and connects the SIM. I'm the size savings are even more when you factor that in as well.

If you usually sleep just under seven hours at night, then you've on average written a post in this forum every single hour for the last 13 years. That's a SERIOUS amount of posts! Not sure how many books that would equal - or how much time. You are getting close to 100.000 posts. There should be a tribus for that.

[I'm not saying that Apple's ready to pull the rug out, and that this is some play to build an evil monopolistic empire, I was just thinking that "licensing" of a "standard" seems counter-intuitive. Why choose a standard, if you have to pay to implement it? Wouldn't the largest provider naturally become the de-facto standard, had one not been chosen? Isn't it each company's best interest to have a standard, anyway (for interoperability)? How does this help the little guy trying to make a standards-controlled item?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that standards comittees meet, and decide these things, since it makes for price competition and increased innovation... I'm just more worried about a small, less known entity could "win the standard", cash in on their "licenses", and then yank the rug out, since it's a commonly accepted practice to have licensed standards.

Maybe I've been paranoid about the term "license" since the software world decided that we shouldn't own anything...

You're implying Apple will renege on standards though with your entire post.

Maybe read up on how international and other standards organizations work. Licensing "standards" used in technical spaces isn't uncommon. Worrying about how Apple will treat patents relating to this is unfounded as already pointed out they've not sued over FRAND or standards patents.

If you usually sleep just under seven hours at night, then you've on average written a post in this forum every single hour for the last 13 years. That's a SERIOUS amount of posts! Not sure how many books that would equal - or how much time. You are getting close to 100.000 posts. There should be a tribus for that.

It makes me feel like a fly on the wall here, but its nice to see us old timers still exist here around all you youngins. >.<

I have to say, I hate this ongoing SIM fragmentation... And now they're introducing the 3rd form factor? Really?

(Technically, it's a fourth form-factor. The orignal SIM was the size of a credit card.)

I can't understand why they didn't reduce down to this size in the first place. Were the engineers not able to grasp the idea that once you make a change to miniaturize (and by design introduce fragmentation) you might as well go all the way? If you're already trimming away unnecessary plastic, trim it all and get it over with!

It's like the having both Mini and Micro USB connectors - what group of no-talent assholes thought that one up?

GSM have existed for how long? 20 or 30 years? Was it open-sourced? (As related patents start to expire, full featured open source implementation will eventually appear.) GSM didn't bother me, and neither does nano-SIM.

GSM is trademarked, owned by the GSM Association. From what I can find, there's no licensing structure, it's more about the standarization of the service's IP than the direction of finances.

Scannall wrote:

Apple has tons of FRAND encumbered patents in many patent pools. And they have always honored them. Unlike a couple others I can think of. And in all the legal wranglings they have reaffirmed their commitment to their FRAND patents.

They will honor their word, they always have.

I'm not saying that Apple's ready to pull the rug out, and that this is some play to build an evil monopolistic empire, I was just thinking that "licensing" of a "standard" seems counter-intuitive. Why choose a standard, if you have to pay to implement it? Wouldn't the largest provider naturally become the de-facto standard, had one not been chosen? Isn't it each company's best interest to have a standard, anyway (for interoperability)? How does this help the little guy trying to make a standards-controlled item?

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that standards comittees meet, and decide these things, since it makes for price competition and increased innovation... I'm just more worried about a small, less known entity could "win the standard", cash in on their "licenses", and then yank the rug out, since it's a commonly accepted practice to have licensed standards.

Maybe I've been paranoid about the term "license" since the software world decided that we shouldn't own anything...

Some large companies have gone back on their FRAND agreements, or at least tried to. Motorola and Samsung come to mind. And Nokia to a lesser extent.

But, you do the best you can. And companies that prove untrustworthy you don't invite back for the next round of standards.

It is in everyones best interest for a standard to be present. In the case of cell phones, everyone gains. Carriers, manufacturers and consumers. The license for FRAND patents is typically pennies. Barely enough to recoup the R & D cost to come up with it. The actual financial gain is on the backend, when you manufacturer the products for sale.

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

It's not so much the volume of the SIM vs. the volume of the phone that's of interest, but the footprint of the SIM socket on the PCB versus the size of the rest of the electronics.

Can you explain why, because I don't really see it myself. The amount of PCB space required is governed by the number of contacts, not the SIM socket itself, and the number of contacts isn't changing. The SIM socket size obviously depends on the SIM size... but RIM, Motorola, and Nokia are all claiming that the nano-SIM doesn't appreciably alter the size anyway. Once the nano-SIM is in a carrier, and once you have a socket big enough for that carrier, the saving compared to a micro-SIM (and its infuriating carrier) doesn't really materialize.

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the behind.

well doesn't it say that they're going to be backwards compatible, with royalty-free licensing? I don't see the problem, it's the same situation no matter who the new sim comes from. what I really want to know is what makes nokia think their design is superior to the chosen format.

It's like the having both Mini and Micro USB connectors - what group of no-talent assholes thought that one up?

Not a clue but if and when you find out who they are, let me know. I'll want to be first in line to give them a good old fashioned educational beating they won't forget anytime soon.

One more - I have a 4GB Mini-SD card that I bought a few years ago for an old phone... Absolutely useless now with everyone using Micro-SD, so I just glued it into a full-size SD adapter and use it as a regular SD now.

what I really want to know is what makes nokia think their design is superior to the chosen format.

If I recall correctly (can't find the old article for some reason) the Nokia design called for card-edge contacts, rather than the current layout. The problem with the current design, among others, is it provides no easy way of hot-swapping if that were desired at some point.

Also, the Nokia/RIM proposal included a notch in the side which allowed the SIM to be captured with a small push latch, which could have eliminated the need for a carrier.

The carrier solution reminds me of the earliest CD-ROM drives (that should certainly date me) which used 'caddies' for some stupid reason. This was already when audio CD players used drawers, demonstrating that extra hardware was unnecessary to play a CD.

It's like the having both Mini and Micro USB connectors - what group of no-talent assholes thought that one up?

Not a clue but if and when you find out who they are, let me know. I'll want to be first in line to give them a good old fashioned educational beating they won't forget anytime soon.

One more - I have a 4GB Mini-SD card that I bought a few years ago for an old phone... Absolutely useless now with everyone using Micro-SD, so I just glued it into a full-size SD adapter and use it as a regular SD now.

There's nothing wrong with breaking compatibility for the sake of miniaturizing - we'd all be using room-sized computers and inch-thick cables if that weren't the case. What burns my toast is when someone miniaturizes a connector but only by an insignificant percentage. It becomes a distinction without a difference. There are too many examples to list, and my blood pressure rises just thinking about it.

The counter-example is the famous RJ-45 (8P8C) connector; not only does the jack provide sideways compatibility with the 4-pin Telco connector, it has also served us with a 1000x increase in speed over its lifetime. Unfortunately, copper-based 10G Ethernet may be the end of the line for that little guy.

I suppose it's smaller than a micro-sim, but it's not a very significant reduction. Still, I guess I wouldn't want to maneuver something much smaller than a microsd card while swapping phones.

What qualifies as significant to you? 40% seems fairly significant to me.

The relevant question is, what percentage of the inside of a typical mobile phone is freed up by the use of the smaller SIM, especially once the tray mechanism is factored in?

The new SIM design may be 40% smaller than the already tiny micro-SIM, but if it's only freeing up 0.1% of the volume of the phone, it's hardly a big win. Which it is:

Volume of a micro-SIM: 136.8 mm^2Volume of a nano-SIM: 72 mm^3Voume of a iPhone 4 S: 62,781 mm^3

Fraction of volume taken up by micro-SIM: 0.21%Fraction of volume taken up by nano-SIM: 0.11%.

But here's what the nano-SIM will do: create a kind of lock-in. Apple will no doubt be first to market (as they were with micro-SIM) and for a transition period of maybe a year or two, it'll be awkward to take your existing iPhone SIM and put it in any other phone. Not insurmountable, as many telcos will give you replacement SIMs of a different size for free. But annoying nonetheless.

If at least it were push-push one could see it as an improvement; the stupid carrier trays are a pain in the behind.

This kind of backseat pundit-based engineering drives me nuts.

I am fairly sure that no one at Apple gives a flying fig about "lock in" due to sim cards. They are pushing the boundary on how much you can fit into as small a space as possible. Apparently the previous poster isn't impressed with the space savings. Don't you think that Apple is going through this process for *EVERY* component in their devices? (Also assuming that volume is relevant is likely wrong - the overall dimensions probably matter more (height/width) than thickness or volume).

This is just basic good engineering. Apple needs to make smaller/thinner devices that pack more stuff. Smaller SIM cards are a necessary.

If you want to talk about lock-in, you're on firmer footing looking towards the App Store, iCloud, and iTunes.

what I really want to know is what makes nokia think their design is superior to the chosen format.

If I recall correctly (can't find the old article for some reason) the Nokia design called for card-edge contacts, rather than the current layout. The problem with the current design, among others, is it provides no easy way of hot-swapping if that were desired at some point.

Also, the Nokia/RIM proposal included a notch in the side which allowed the SIM to be captured with a small push latch, which could have eliminated the need for a carrier.

The carrier solution reminds me of the earliest CD-ROM drives (that should certainly date me) which used 'caddies' for some stupid reason. This was already when audio CD players used drawers, demonstrating that extra hardware was unnecessary to play a CD.

Caddies were used because there used to be a smaller size of CDs (even ones the size of business cards, with square edges on two sides) that would be used, which wouldn't work on the slot loading. Since music CDs were standardized, there wouldn't be any issues having the slots. The smaller CDs are still used as driver CDs, especially with smaller electronics (where the CD physical size would require a larger packaging).

I understand why Apple wants the tray design, and though I do like the idea of push-push, i prefer the tray. A push-push would require a SIM door, which is something that would possibly break or have unclean lines (assuming it wasn't hidden behind a battery cover or the like). My experience with doors for SIM cards have left me wanting.

I'm wondering, if I remember right, Apple never wanted money for the whole nano-sim design. Instead, didn't they want it as a "You will be able to freely use our nano-sim design, but in turn you will agree to let us license one of your patents of our choice freely"? Or am I mistaken?

If I remember this right, then this could be a very dangerous weapon for Apple since they are suing so many other companies over patents and being able to suddenly go "Well since your using our nano-sim, which just happens to be the standard, you have agreed to let us license one of your patents for free. We'll just now license for free that patent your using to protect yourself with. And if not, you won't be able to use a industry wide standard, not a good move for you."

On the other hand, if Apple really is allowing the patent to be license for nothing at all then oh well.

Can anyone help clarify this?

It only applies to this particular sim. Like many things, there are several patents and patent holders involved in a standard. Apple has the biggest share of this standard and has said that their part will be free of charge, if the others in the pool also do the same.

It's not so much the volume of the SIM vs. the volume of the phone that's of interest, but the footprint of the SIM socket on the PCB versus the size of the rest of the electronics.

Can you explain why, because I don't really see it myself. The amount of PCB space required is governed by the number of contacts, not the SIM socket itself, and the number of contacts isn't changing. The SIM socket size obviously depends on the SIM size... but RIM, Motorola, and Nokia are all claiming that the nano-SIM doesn't appreciably alter the size anyway. Once the nano-SIM is in a carrier, and once you have a socket big enough for that carrier, the saving compared to a micro-SIM (and its infuriating carrier) doesn't really materialize.

From a PCB perspective, the problem with the first 3 SIM form factors (and looking at it, apparently 4FF also) is mainly the arrangement of the contacts, not the number. The fact is that the contacts haven't budged since the original SIM specification. Because they're arranged in a rectangular fashion, the PCB socket must be at least that large to mate up with the SIM. The socket is further enlarged by having to accommodate the plastic that surrounds the smart card contacts, and the housing to keep the SIM card in place (and to prevent the user from ripping components off the board as they try to insert it skewed) makes things a little larger again.

Realistically, all that's happened from 1FF to 4FF is that progressively more plastic has been removed from around the contacts. This has gradually made the SIM smaller, but the footprint of the mating contacts on the PCB hasn't changed.in the better part of 2 decades.

What Motorola, Nokia et al. had proposed made a bit more sense, albeit by breaking backwards compatibility without an adapter. By throwing out the old contact arrangement, they were free to significantly shrink the size of each individual contact, and arrange them in a manner that reduced the surface area on the PCB.

This is the same concept as SD cards - by lining up the contacts on one edge of the card, the PCB socket only has to be as large as the footprint of those contacts plus a small amount to make the setup physically secure. The rest of the card can hang off the edge of the PCB towards the case of the device and the outside world in general.

The pictures I've seen of their 4FF candidate shows 6 contacts at the edge of the card, plus two further back. While the UICC (smart card) standard requires 8 contacts, modern SIM cards are effectively a 6-contact interface; two of those are labelled "reserved" in the SIM card specification, and many SIM cards don't even provide those contacts. I believe that's why Mot/Nok decided to place these further back, knowing full well that they wouldn't be populated in most cards.

Pictures are good. I've drawn a red outline as what I believe the bare minimum socket footprint would roughly be for both 4FF candidates:

I've left as little space as possible around Apple's accepted proposal on the left and the rejected proposal on the right. I left the socket a little longer than obvious on the rejected version to accommodate the notch used for the proposed latching mechanism. With these assumptions, the rejected version would have resulted in a 50% reduction in footprint, but there are probably factors (like the tray Apple loves to use) that would affect both versions.

ETSI probably picked the Apple proposal because it's completely backwards-compatible. The only thing required to make it work in a phone that uses a micro, mini or standard SIM is a dumb plastic mechanical adapter. The other proposal requires an adapter that moves the electrical contacts around, which is more of a risk.

Caddies were used because there used to be a smaller size of CDs (even ones the size of business cards, with square edges on two sides) that would be used, which wouldn't work on the slot loading.

At the time, there were no slot-loading CD players (those came later in automobile players, actually). And caddies did not solve the problem of non-regular CD sizes - they would have rattled around inside a caddy just as they would have in the existing drawers. (I still have a few caddies sitting around in attic storage.) They solved no problem other than how to enrich the companies that sold caddies.

Maybe you're thinking of some sort of CD carrier/adapter instead, for the odd-sized ones?

Maybe you're thinking of some sort of CD carrier/adapter instead, for the odd-sized ones?

Oooooohhh, you're talking about THOSE. I haven't thought about those in years, my bad. If memory serves, I thought the point was those was to protect the underside of the disc, kinda like what MiniDisc became. always thought those were funky.

ETSI probably picked the Apple proposal because it's completely backwards-compatible. The only thing required to make it work in a phone that uses a micro, mini or standard SIM is a dumb plastic mechanical adapter. The other proposal requires an adapter that moves the electrical contacts around, which is more of a risk.

- This is reasonable if we accept that SIM trays are alright (which I do);- That Apple is not = evil (which fits my POV);- And if we reject the conspiracy, as Peter Bright - the Microsoft editor believes, that a new standard by Apple must be a way to increase lock in (which I don't believe is true with this proposal).

Oooooohhh, you're talking about THOSE. I haven't thought about those in years

I said it would date me. Those goddamn things were around in the 80s and early 90s.

Quote:

If memory serves, I thought the point was those was to protect the underside of the disc, kinda like what MiniDisc became.

I've asked probably 30 or 40 people over the years why we needed them (in part because they annoyed me so much) and could never get a logical answer. The standard reply was to protect the discs, which only works if one intends to buy one caddy for every disc they own.

(And incidentally, it's actually the top of most discs that needed protection. Yes, the laser points at the bottom side, but the layer where the data resides is actually on the top. On many discs it could be scratched away with a key, or damaged with the wrong type of writing instrument. Archival-quality discs have an added protective layer of plastic on the top for this reason.)

The reality was that most people only had a single caddy (which usually came with the drive) or only a handful, and instead swapped the discs in and out just like they would using a drawer, except with the added inconvenience of the fussy caddy latches and hinges. So the discs actually received more handling with the caddies, not less.

In any case it all became moot when caddies disappeared for good, along with all the bogus justifications that people tried to attribute to them in the first place.

I have to say, I hate this ongoing SIM fragmentation... And now they're introducing the 3rd form factor? Really?

(Technically, it's a fourth form-factor. The orignal SIM was the size of a credit card.)

I can't understand why they didn't reduce down to this size in the first place. Were the engineers not able to grasp the idea that once you make a change to miniaturize (and by design introduce fragmentation) you might as well go all the way? If you're already trimming away unnecessary plastic, trim it all and get it over with!

It's like the having both Mini and Micro USB connectors - what group of no-talent assholes thought that one up?

The micro/mini USB comparison isn't really valid, because micro USB wasn't introduced just for the sake of size reduction: it also moved the most fragile part (the latch) from the socket to the plug, and generally made the system sturdier. With smartphones that need to be charged everyday, that's quite useful...

The micro/mini USB comparison isn't really valid, because micro USB wasn't introduced just for the sake of size reduction: it also moved the most fragile part (the latch) from the socket to the plug, and generally made the system sturdier. With smartphones that need to be charged everyday, that's quite useful...

Why didn't they do this when they originally designed the Mini version then? Too unfamiliar with, oh, a century of electrical connectors to figure it out?

It's like the having both Mini and Micro USB connectors - what group of no-talent assholes thought that one up?

Not a clue but if and when you find out who they are, let me know. I'll want to be first in line to give them a good old fashioned educational beating they won't forget anytime soon.

What a rabble.

The mini standard was announced way back in 2000. Back then, it was viewed as being small enough, compared to USB, which itself is tiny compared to parallel or serial. Also, at that point, there may not have been sophisticated manufacturing technologies available to make the micro connectors/receptacles at an acceptable cost, and for it to be highly rated. No one thought phones would use it; it was to connect computer peripherals; why would a phone need it? The phone had a jack for charging, and it can connect to the cellular network.

The designers probably still had the Matrix fresh in their minds, where Keanu Reeves used the top end Nokia 8110. It was so great, it could receive ringtones via text, though the Browser (WAP) would only come out later.

The micro standard was announced in 2007.

dlux wrote:

The counter-example is the famous RJ-45 (8P8C) connector; not only does the jack provide sideways compatibility with the 4-pin Telco connector, it has also served us with a 1000x increase in speed over its lifetime. Unfortunately, copper-based 10G Ethernet may be the end of the line for that little guy.

With most homes and many office end nodes still on 100, and the other on 1000, the demise of RJ45 will likely be far beyond our lifetimes.

what I really want to know is what makes nokia think their design is superior to the chosen format.

If I recall correctly (can't find the old article for some reason) the Nokia design called for card-edge contacts, rather than the current layout. The problem with the current design, among others, is it provides no easy way of hot-swapping if that were desired at some point.

Also, the Nokia/RIM proposal included a notch in the side which allowed the SIM to be captured with a small push latch, which could have eliminated the need for a carrier.

The carrier solution reminds me of the earliest CD-ROM drives (that should certainly date me) which used 'caddies' for some stupid reason. This was already when audio CD players used drawers, demonstrating that extra hardware was unnecessary to play a CD.

Caddies were used because there used to be a smaller size of CDs (even ones the size of business cards, with square edges on two sides) that would be used, which wouldn't work on the slot loading. Since music CDs were standardized, there wouldn't be any issues having the slots. The smaller CDs are still used as driver CDs, especially with smaller electronics (where the CD physical size would require a larger packaging).

I understand why Apple wants the tray design, and though I do like the idea of push-push, i prefer the tray. A push-push would require a SIM door, which is something that would possibly break or have unclean lines (assuming it wasn't hidden behind a battery cover or the like). My experience with doors for SIM cards have left me wanting.

Nah, the 8cm, even smaller non-standard round, and wallet sized CDs worked fine without caddies, in most drives. Yes, slot in drives like these from pioneer wouldn't take non-12cm CDs, and required caddies for it. The standard caddy for even 12 cm was even earlier, and it was mainly due to an abundance of caution against dust and scratch protection. Allegedly anyway, since I never used or even saw irl one of these.

And oh, the notch wouldn't prevent the sim card from being used with a tray.

Smeghead wrote:

DrPizza wrote:

Smeghead wrote:

ETSI probably picked the Apple proposal because it's completely backwards-compatible. The only thing required to make it work in a phone that uses a micro, mini or standard SIM is a dumb plastic mechanical adapter. The other proposal requires an adapter that moves the electrical contacts around, which is more of a risk.

Too bad there's also more of a risk of manufacturers coming back and asking for a picoSIM standard a couple years down the line.

The RIM/Nokia/Mot proposal is obviously superior, but it does come at the cost of backwards compatibility. However, since it is thinner, it could just be placed in a physical converter much like microSDs.

Just publish whatever units the source material gives, and leave it at that. No conversion necessary..

Because it doesn't work the other way around. While you might learn both systems in school, most people born in other countries only know metric, were never taught imperial in school and never use it in day to day life. I'm sure many non-US Ars readers also know imperial because they tend to be more scientific, and probably read a lot of US-based literature that only uses imperial. But overwhelming majority of people on earth would have no clue. As a reasonably scientific Australian who recently moved to the [supposedly] metric Canada, I was absolutely lost without my converter app when researching apartments - all listed in square feet.

does push push not require any hardware to work? I would think it would require some sort of spring mechanism at the very least. If so does that mechanism take up more space than the caddy? I think those are questions one would ask before saying that push push is better. Also is there an increase in manufacturing costs for one design or the other. I really can't imagine there is anything cheaper than a small plastic tray.

The counter-example is the famous RJ-45 (8P8C) connector; not only does the jack provide sideways compatibility with the 4-pin Telco connector, it has also served us with a 1000x increase in speed over its lifetime. Unfortunately, copper-based 10G Ethernet may be the end of the line for that little guy.

With most homes and many office end nodes still on 100, and the other on 1000, the demise of RJ45 will likely be far beyond our lifetimes.

Whenever I imagine Serenity's (a la Firefly) networking interface, I'm going to assume it's RJ-45. Because Ethernet is just the thing that would survive a departure to another solar system.

Man, there's going to be the equivalent of steampunk with Ethernet, isn't there? I nearly bought a 100 Mbps 24-port switch for $30 the other day, just for the blinken lights, but decided against it on the basis of me already having to much random electronic crap I'm not using.

What would a home user even use 10Gbps for? Ok, I admit I and others on this fora could find a use, but for the average consumer? Especially in the US, where bandwidth speeds are terrible. Unless you have a lot of toys, pretty much the only thing going over a home network is Internet, and that's not more than (optimistically) 50 Mbps.

I wish I had my grandparents home...they have 2 Cat 6 lines to every room; and they also have difficulty doing anything on their computer. I wish new homes would include Ethernet wiring standard, instead of it requiring a custom house or extensive work after the fact. Wireless is a pretty dumb way to solve our networking issues, given how much bandwidth you can shove down a fiber or copper line.

Whenever I imagine Serenity's (a la Firefly) networking interface, I'm going to assume it's RJ-45. Because Ethernet is just the thing that would survive a departure to another solar system.

Man, there's going to be the equivalent of steampunk with Ethernet, isn't there? I nearly bought a 100 Mbps 24-port switch for $30 the other day, just for the blinken lights, but decided against it on the basis of me already having to much random electronic crap I'm not using.

What would a home user even use 10Gbps for? Ok, I admit I and others on this fora could find a use, but for the average consumer? Especially in the US, where bandwidth speeds are terrible. Unless you have a lot of toys, pretty much the only thing going over a home network is Internet, and that's not more than (optimistically) 50 Mbps.

I wish I had my grandparents home...they have 2 Cat 6 lines to every room; and they also have difficulty doing anything on their computer. I wish new homes would include Ethernet wiring standard, instead of it requiring a custom house or extensive work after the fact. Wireless is a pretty dumb way to solve our networking issues, given how much bandwidth you can shove down a fiber or copper line.

The home wifi networking WIGIG etc is going to 60GHz for 1Gbps for home av equipment.

The other thing is home control network (like cbus but tcpip) with every single power using device having an ip. Like on jags with canbus, can monitor and predict when a light bulb is going to fail(old style bulb, when impedance starts increasing)

Some high end equipment has already gone optical for home av.Corning and others are heavily pushing it for the home. Main problem is the cost of the switches